SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

BeterChiarelli

Ban Price trades
Member Since
Oct. 29, 2017
Favourite Team
Edmonton Oilers
Forum Posts
6482
Posts per Day
2.7
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 22 at 7:04 a.m.
Thread: Thank you dougbrady214
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>This is a poor take that far too many people adopt.

Using prorated values, Ottawa is sending more than $1.59M in actual cap back to Dallas. They only have LTIR room for up to $1.52M. The prorated value of just Lundkvist returning is $207k: the Stars don't have the necessary cap space to facilitate this trade without a UFA being returned in this deal or shed by other means. Hakanpaa is only owed a prorated $336k: if you believe Ottawa needs anything of value to be convinced to take on less than half a million dollars in owed money you're out to lunch. Seeing those numbers now, the Stars don't actually have enough cap space to make this deal work unless Ottawa takes back more or they find a way to scrape another $473k.

If the piece returned has term, then yes, the acquiring team should be owed an asset. On an expiring deal needed to facilitate the deal? Piss off.</div></div>
Don't blame the poster, it's because some dummies created this whole narrative that every $ taken needs to be compensated.

Not saying the narrative didn't start before but last summer for example, Sens were tight to the cap and everyone thought they needed to "dump" someone to be able to sign Pinto (who was going to be suspended but we weren't aware of it yet). There was Mathieu Joseph and his 2.95 AAV who was a candidate to be moved as he didn't have a great season in 2022-23 (which was injury related). Even then, it wasn't like he was a big cap dump because he was still an useful player. The asking prices on this site were all over the place, some were asking a 1st+ to take 3 years x 2.95 AAV and a decent 3rd liner...

There was this Flyers fan that I haven't seen lately who was proposing to retain 50% on Scott Laughton (3.0 AAV) to take on Joseph and solve Ottawa's problem. He was asking a 1st + 1st + 2nd value (so (over) value for Laughton AND value to take on Joseph ANCHOR of a contract). lol so how is it possible for the bulk of the posters to understand the way "cap dumping" works when there's constantly super stupid stuff like that?

I was repeating that "<em>it's not how it works</em>" and that Joseph was a better player than Scott freaking Laughton anyway but this dude and a bunch of others were louder and my intervention didn't really work, except on a few maybe. That's the problem and it's the same thing in society, idiocracy is much louder than reasonable people.

For all my time spent on this site, yes in general people don't have a good grasp on how this cap dumping works and at the deadline it's just one aspect
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 21 at 7:27 p.m.
Thread: Thank you dougbrady214
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>This is a poor take that far too many people adopt.

Using prorated values, Ottawa is sending more than $1.59M in actual cap back to Dallas. They only have LTIR room for up to $1.52M. The prorated value of just Lundkvist returning is $207k: the Stars don't have the necessary cap space to facilitate this trade without a UFA being returned in this deal or shed by other means. Hakanpaa is only owed a prorated $336k: if you believe Ottawa needs anything of value to be convinced to take on less than half a million dollars in owed money you're out to lunch. Seeing those numbers now, the Stars don't actually have enough cap space to make this deal work unless Ottawa takes back more or they find a way to scrape another $473k.

If the piece returned has term, then yes, the acquiring team should be owed an asset. On an expiring deal needed to facilitate the deal? Piss off.</div></div>

Ottawa could easily flip Hakanpaa too.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 21 at 1:04 p.m.
Thread: How we feeling about this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>$2.5M seems highly unrealistic: you'd be asking the player to take a pay cut when the cap is about to take its biggest jump in recent memory. Likewise, Foegele has a back-loaded deal and is going to want to stay at or above that $3.25M mark he's currently at for this season. That's just human nature.

I'm expecting him to sign somewhere between the cap percentages of Lustorainen and Vatrano. That's going to see him earning anywhere between $3.15M to $3.85M on an $87.7M salary cap, probably on a three year deal. It feels rich for a 15G/20A player but he's always had strong possession metrics, can skate, and has picked up some PK utility in Edmonton. He's an ideal third-line forward for a team that can afford him.</div></div>

100%, I think a realistic amount for him is 3.5M for 3, but it depends on him as a person.
Maybe he likes playing in EDM or with Drai/McD or that he is likely closest to a cup on EDM and thus takes a pay cut; again though, this is my wishful thinking.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 25 at 6:19 p.m.
Thread: ALL IN FOR PARAYKO
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>Two things:

1. You're assuming the buyout happens at the end of this season? The math looks totally different than what you present: it's about $550k for two years, $2.2M for a season, $3.7M as you identify from 2027 through 2030, then drops to about $2.05M for six years. I get the point that you're making (more expensive versus conventional contract) but the uber-expensive buyouts that you're referring to were the back-diving deals like what Crosby, Ovechkin, Keith, and Weber were signed to many moons ago. AC14 sets up a scenario where it's likely to be only the +35 years that the buyout focuses on. I believe that sets up June 2028 as the timeframe to look at this buyout from.

2. The four years of Parayko's buyout in 2028 onward progress as:

2028-29: $3.3M
2029-30: $3.3M
2030-31: $1.6M
2031-32: $1.6M

As long as the buyout happens after 2026, there's no fluctuation to the cap hit Parayko's buyout holds.</div></div>

yes you are right with the numbers on a later buy out. I missed the 35+ buyout date.

I wasnt referring to the back diving contracts just the bump in the last years of the actual contract are more expensive due to lower salary.(not the years after contract would be finished) as he talks about STL being competitive again in 2026 they buy out would not be as easy to digest as its a larger hit in those last couple years his contract actually runs.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 25 at 5:21 p.m.
Thread: ALL IN FOR PARAYKO
Trading Parayko moves the Blues into a scorched earth rebuild status. Effectively wasting most of the careers of Thomas and Kyrou.

There is no effective way to replace what Parayko brings to the team unless it's via draft. And drafting and developing a top end shutdown guy isn't necessarily easy.

We mostly know that nobody is going to give us the pieces that we would need in order to move Parayko, that's why we largely say he's not being moved.

Armstrong's plan is to be competitive again in the 26-27 timeline. Parayko very much has quite a few good years of hockey left in him. It's often overlooked too that his contract was front loaded. If he does fall off a cliff towards the last couple of years 35+ years he can easily be bought out if necessary although I don't see how it will be if the cap keeps rising.
Forum: DiscussionJan. 25 at 1:07 p.m.
Thread: Supermod town hall meeting - AGM section
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>TBH I'm not for blindly giving infractions/deleting posts in regards to the WJC unless it clearly breaks a rule. Simply stating an opinion on it isn't against the rules IMHO. If someone takes to the next level of saying things that are derogatory that don't have any pertinence to what's going on and just meant to shock/flame, etc, than yes.

I think unless Banks/Jarvis suggest otherwise, we should take our opinions out of the equation here altogether. Are they breaking a rule? Yes &gt; Warning/infraction/Delete. If not, you need allow for a certain level of free speech.

As much as I get the reasoning for wanting to calm it, there isn't anything wrong with Rampant speculation. The whole point of the forum is to have a discussion (within the rules) so that everyone feels free to contribute. If users are having a discussion in regards to the speculation, there isn't anything wrong with that. Once again within the CF rules and our judgement will have to come into play obviously.</div></div>



I’m in agreement with marco, unless it breaks the rules there should be a warning or infraction, that being said I think we will have to make sure ACGM pages, mock draft pages and trade machine pages are still doing what they are supposed to be for, and they have have a hot take discussion about it in the forum section.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>Rooney
Ajp_18
alwaysnextyear
F50Marco
DoctorBreakfast
DragonRaptorHybrid
toque
Jarvis
Ryan
Banks

With names being released in regards to the 2018 WJC Team Canada scandal, I wanted to poll the room on how we should proceed.

Currently, any speculation as to who was involved or who did what garners an automatic Level 1 infraction. I am anticipating that were going to see some very inappropriate hot-takery once the names are released. How would you guys like to go about managing those users that take this opportunity to troll and be the least-decent versions of themselves?</div></div>
Forum: NHLJan. 24 at 3:54 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #3: After Further Review...
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>I think the comparison is a poor one given that Chiarelli started with the selection of McDavid and the club was effectively thrust into "compete now" mode by their owner. Davidson had a draft leading up to Bedard and the Blackhawks were already comfortably nestled into mediocrity at that point and appear committed to the process for at least the remainder of this season.

Is Chicago starting their rebuild better than Edmonton did? Yes. Does this mean they should be forgiven for squandering two assets that could have been turned into (at minimum) a pair of top-100 selections in the upcoming draft? No.</div></div>

It's ultimately a luxury they feel they can afford to take. Chicago has the most valuable pool of upcoming picks right now and KD values establishing continuity and culture over mid round picks. Not to mention some of Bowman's leftovers have turned out better than expected (mainly Vlasic). They'll have multiple waves of prospects getting shots at the NHL level in the next ~2.5 seasons and they want them stepping into what they feel is the best situation while still rebuilding. Whether or not culture and a stable room outweighs mid round pics, only time will tell
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 24 at 3:50 p.m.
Thread: We can no longer avoid LTIR
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>Would "punting" on this season - in essence selling on Miller and Toffoli as rentals - to acquire more assets be an option?

The two glaring weaknesses I figure the Devils want to address are going to be the goaltending and probably adding at least one more scoring forward. A first, a second, a pair of thirds, and Seamus Casey (maybe?) go a long way in getting one or two of those pressing issues solved and I can't see Nashville letting Saros go until the draft anyways.

This still requires limping by until the All Star break before committing to just being a wildcard team for the rest of the year.</div></div>

If healthy, we should have no problem scoring goals. We have a young (and injury depleted) blueline and some real long term questions in net.

So…
Short-term, need a dman
Long-term, need a goalie